JP Morgan Chase Merger Case Study

A direct cyberattack in 2014 to JPMorgan Chase caused a compromised of accounts effecting a total of 76 million households and seven million small businesses. We are clearly, in times when consumer confidence in the digital operations of corporate America is on shaky ground. In directly, banking is taking the brunt of the fallout but major stores also have breaches which of course are directly related to their financial data. Store like, Target, Home Depot and a number of other retailers have experienced major data breaches. 40 million cardholders and 70 million others were compromised at Target alone in 2013 and an attack at Home Depot in September, 2013 affected 56 million cardholders.

Competition is quickly encroaching on SunTrust’s territory. The financial crisis helped rivals gain more presence in SunTrust’s core markets through key acquisitions. BB&T bank, one of SunTrust’s main competitors, recently increased its presence with its acquisition of Florida-based BankAtlantic. This acquisition increased BB&T’s deposit market share to 6th in the Miami market. (BB&T Corporate Profile)

Monopolies and oligopolies often use anti-competitive practices, which can have a negative impact on the economy. This is why company mergers are often examined closely by government regulators to avoid reducing competition in an industry.

A relevant market is defined as a market where “sellers, if unified by a hypothetical cartel or merger, could raise prices significantly above the competitive level”. The main focus here is not whether other office retailers have anything in common with office superstores, but whether a sufficient number of customers will continue buying from them despite of significant price increases. The relevant market in the case includes only Office Depot, Staples, and Office Max in some areas. The proposed merger will most likely create a monopoly and significantly reduce competition. The evidence shows that even if the new monopolist raises the prices by more than 5%, the majority of customers will not consider such retailers as Wal-Mart, BestBuy, Target, Kmart as substitutes for

Omnicare, Inc., (NYSE: OCR) and CVS Health Corporation (NYSE: CVS), are two competitive firms in different industries. A press release announces that “CVS Health and Omnicare sign a definitive agreement for CVS Health to acquire Omnicare” ("CVS Health and Omnicare Sign a Definitive Agreement for CVS Health to Acquire Omnicare," 2015). The purpose of this paper is to discuss the merger of CVS and Omnicare. First, the paper describes the principal firms in the merger and the industry in which each operates. Secondly, the paper discusses the incentives to consolidate from the viewpoints of each firm. Thirdly, the writer explains the competitive environment in the industry and how it benefits the firms and society.

This article is about the threat of merger and the influence of a monopolistic media. The

It is necessary for a firm to expand in order to gain profits or leverage in a market place. One of the ways firms can do this is by executing a merger. There are two types of mergers, horizontal and vertical mergers. There are many incentives for companies to perform either type of merger; however, both types of mergers will always raise suspicion when being executed because they are usually perceived as anticompetitive. In order to prevent an anticompetitive environment, our government established a federal agency called the Federal Trade Commission. Their job is to review the activity of any given firm and decide whether or not to allow them to continue. Presently, CVS and Etna are currently undergoing a vertical merger to gain profits and

The predominant view in the United States is that The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 was passed with the intent to protect consumers from inefficient market forms, and predation by large corporations. The specific provisions of the Sherman Act, as well as the later Clayton Act of 1914, prohibit acts that are considered to be anti competitive such as cartels, monopolies, price discrimination, and predatory pricing. Mergers and acquisitions are also individually reviewed to ensure they won 't have an anti competitive effect on the market. We will look at each of these acts to try to determine their actual impact to the consumer. We will also

This strategy started under the Reagan administration since they did not enforce U.S. anti-trust law “restricted managers ability to merge and consolidate monopolistic firms” (Schaeffer, 49). The Reagan administration viewed mergers and monopolies as a good thing. They argued that these mergers play important role in the economy and if there is ineffective management or redeployment of assets the companies can be penalize. Nevertheless, the government adopted policies in 1980, which allow more than 1,565 mergers that equal to be worth 32.9 billion and double value within a couple of years. During the next administration under George H. W. Bush they adopted similar policies and the chain toward Bill Clinton administration allowing mergers to continue plus arguing that the anti-trust laws were out dated. “There has been a sea-change in (federal government) attitudes towards large mergers” (Schaeffer,

Generally, an industry consolidation can generate concerns regarding monopolistic tendencies and negative affects on market trends. In a monopoly, companies maximize profits, control prices, place prohibitive barriers to entry, and minimize competition. As expected, this PBM consolidation did raise similar concerns by the NCPA (2011) and encouraged the FTC to block the consolidation based on monopoly power and market domination. However, the NCPA is incorrect when describing this merger as a monopoly. Monopolies typically occur in a supply chain market. PBM’s are sellers of goods and services. As such, this consolidation is in fact an oligopsony, describing a market with many sellers and few buyers. An oligopsony market allows for competition and compliments consumers. The anti-trust concern, however, may be whether competition will remain strong enough to pass any cost savings to the PBM’s customers, i.e. employer plans, health plans, and other client markets.

A merger is a partial or total combination of two separate business firms and forming of a new one. There are predominantly two kinds of mergers: partial and complete. Partial merger usually involves the combination of joint ventures and inter-corporate stock purchases. Complete mergers are results in blending of identities and the creation of a single succeeding firm. (Hicks, 2012, p 491). Mergers in the healthcare sector, particularly horizontal hospital mergers wherein two or more hospitals merge into a single corporation, are increasing both in frequency and importance. (Gaughan, 2002). This paper is an attempt to study the impact of the merger of two competing healthcare organization and will also attempt to propose appropriate

As a result of extensive research on various topics, the one area there has been on the rise and is subject to further debate and analysis is the North American free trade agreement. This particular treaty is of interest owing to the current globalization that is fast consuming economies across the world as well as the change in leadership in the three countries involved. As a result, this essay takes into account the current economic state of the world about the increased competition; need to form economic mergers and the role it plays. Therefore, the choice of this key term is as a result of curiosity of the effect of globalization on the formation of economic mergers.

One major objective of mergers is to be able to reduce or fully eliminate the weaknesses that may exit in

FTC employed structural, documentary, statistical, econometrics and financial evidence to verify that the proposed merger of Staples and Office Depot will lead to increase in market concentration, market prices and stock prices, and thus support FTC’s contention that this merger will cause an anticompetitive effect on Office Superstore market. Staples and Office Depot made a plain and useless contradiction. Finally, the Court announced to agree with FTC, and granted a preliminary injunction on this merger. This paper mainly focuses on FTC’s evidence and analysis.

The General Electric (GE) and Honeywell International (HI) case illustrates the complexities of structuring mergers and acquisitions when the combined firms are capable of exerting market influence that threatens the competitive landscape. While General Electric's CEO, Jack Welch, characterized the deal as, "This is the cleanest deal you'll ever see," European anti-trust regulators were not so inclined to view the transaction as harmless to competition (Elliot, 2001).